Letter-writer Lloyd Schwengel didn’t do his homework before writing his letter to the Register’s editor. He claims the U.S. Post Office is “subsidized with taxpayer money.”

Sorry, Lloyd, it is not! Not a single taxpayer dollar goes to operate the postal system. It is entirely self-sufficient.

The U.S. Post Office is in dire financial straits because of an arcane law that requires the Post Office to have in its reserves 75 years of employee pension monies.

That’s a lot of money! The Post Office turns a profit, but not such a great profit as to set aside that much money above and beyond its annual operating expenses.

No business does.

But the Post Office is required to do so. Why? Because the federal government, which is in charge of the Post Office, sets the rules the Post Office has to follow.

Why would they make a rule so difficult to abide by? Because our senators and representatives who make the rules are under a lot of pressure from their supporters (campaign contributors) to do away with the Post Office and open the door to private companies such as FedEx, UPS and others to deliver the mail.

A move such as this would benefit only the carriers and not the consumers.

FedEx and UPS charge about $10 to send a letter from Orange County to Los Angeles, and about $14 to send that same letter all the way to New York City.

It costs you and me a grand total of $0.46to send that same letter to Los Angeles or New York via USPS.

But it still makes me wonder why the Register is in favor of privatizing the Postal Service.

– Rob Macfarlane Costa Mesa

WILL WONDERS NEVER CEASE

I could hardly believe my eyes when I read the opinion piece by Christopher Preble “Obama right not to arm Syrian rebels” (OC Register, Feb. 12).

Because the Register usually is so negative about anything that President Obama does, I first believed that I had mistakenly opened my copy of the Los Angeles Times (I subscribe to both papers to try to get a balanced perspective of opinions) when I read a positive commentary on something in President Obama’s foreign policy.

I believe that the commentary was well argued, and I thank you for publishing it.

Here we have a Republican idea that make all sorts of sense, an idea supported by both Romney’s and Bush’s political advisers, which is not being championed by any Republican in the House or Senate.

A revenue-neutral carbon tax is a much better idea than letting Obama go at it without Republican input.

Republicans used to listen to climate concerns and climate scientists. George W. ran for office promising to treat CO2 as a pollutant under EPA control. He didn’t follow through probably because Vice President Cheney’s close ties to the oil industry nixed that idea, but he wasn’t afraid of the subject.

John McCain was a leading advocate for action on the climate challenge when he ran for the presidency. Now he, along with every other Republican member of Congress, is silent and lets climate deniers speak for them.

This is destined to be one more stance that will lose votes in coming elections.

Young people side with gay marriage, sensible gun laws, the right to choose, and they know that climate change is not a good thing for them and their kids.

Join the Conversation

We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. Although we do not pre-screen comments, we reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.

If you see comments that you find offensive, please use the “Flag as Inappropriate” feature by hovering over the right side of the post, and pulling down on the arrow that appears. Or, contact our editors by emailing moderator@scng.com.